Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-12 Thread Matija Šuklje
Dne torek, 12. september 2017 ob 20:14:11 CEST je Zavras, Alexios napisal(a): > For even more extreme fun, I can point to cases like ffmpeg, where, > according to the options get passed to configure build script, different > files (under different licenses) get compiled and linked. Great example.

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-12 Thread Marc Jones
Mark, You said 'A package is a “box of stuff” where some stuff may be related by linking while other stuff is not.' While I agree that is true, I am not sure I agree that dealing with it at a file level avoids many problems. For two reasons: 1) wheather lawyers and licensing nerds like it or not

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-12 Thread W. Trevor King
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:52:26PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Mark Gisi: > > the SPDX identifier model will need to accommodate a LicenseRef > > like mechanism... > > I'm not arguing to *remove* licenserefs, I agree they can be useful. > > My point is different. Since many users *only* use

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-12 Thread Wheeler, David A
Mark Gisi: > LicenseRefs are critical for creating SPDX files. I disagree, for at least two reasons: 1. A vast amount of software does *NOT* require weird special-case licenserefs. 2. Many people who use SPDX will never see nor use a SPDX file. Instead, many people use SPDX *exclusively* for

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:27 PM To: Gisi, Mark Cc: J Lovejoy; Marc Jones; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: GPLv2 - Github example On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:59:17PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > If the source file license is GPL-2.0 that currently means only

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
ce" examples that have a fundamental problem with regards to the "or later"/only problem. The problem appears to lie with package level licensing -Original Message- From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:27 PM To: Gisi, Mark Cc: J

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
frequently encountered in the wild. - Mark -Original Message- From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:58 PM To: Gisi, Mark; W. Trevor King Cc: SPDX-legal Subject: RE: GPLv2 - Github example W. Trevor King: > >> But you can't def

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:18 PM To: Gisi, Mark Cc: J Lovejoy; Marc Jones; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: GPLv2 - Github example On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:04:57PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be > >> represented by ‘CDD

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Wheeler, David A
W. Trevor King: > >> But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1]) where > >> the only thing you can set is a license expression and you don't have > >> access to the broader SPDX spec. > >> [1]: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license > Gisi, Mark: > This is not a

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread W. Trevor King
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:26:56PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1]) where the > >> only > >> thing you can set is a license expression and you don't have access to the > >> broader > >> SPDX spec. > >> [1]:

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
17 12:18 PM To: Gisi, Mark Cc: J Lovejoy; Marc Jones; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: GPLv2 - Github example On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:04:57PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be > >> represented by ‘CDDL-1.0 only’. > >

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread W. Trevor King
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:04:57PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be > >> represented by ‘CDDL-1.0 only’. > > … Finally this case can be elegantly handled with a LicenseRef… But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1])

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
rovide a practical justification for adding an "only" operator. Other Suggestions? - Mark -Original Message- From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:30 AM To: Gisi, Mark Cc: J Lovejoy; Marc Jones; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: GPLv2 - Github e

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

2017-09-11 Thread W. Trevor King
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:40:05PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > I know that the following CDDL was discussed with respect to the > “only” problem: > > * This file and its contents are supplied under the terms of the > * Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL"), version 1.0. > * You may

RE: GPLv2 - Github example (was: Re: New license proposal: Verbatim)

2017-09-11 Thread Gisi, Mark
>> it’s the job of SPDX to provide a clear way to identify >> what is found and a language to express that in. I concur. Sometimes the best one can do is to document the lack of license information hence the existence of the NONE and NOASSERTION designations. Because a core SPDX principle is